"None of us can boast about the morality of our ancestors. The records do not show that Adam and Eve were married." Ed Howe
"I'd like to meet the person who invented sex and see what he's working on now." Unknown
At the core of the dispute concerning the role of emotions in morality lies the following dispute between Aristotle and Kant: Is moral behavior contrary to or in accordance with our emotional inclinations? Is a virtuous partner one who does not desire other people, or one who does desire them but nevertheless remains faithful?
Aristotle introduces a distinction between the fully virtuous person and the self-controlled one. The desires of the fully virtuous person are in complete harmony with her reason; she gladly acts morally. The self-controlled person should act contrary to her desires in order to act morally. In Aristotle's view, the fully virtuous person is morally superior to the self-controlled one. Kant considers the self-controlled agent to be morally superior, for she acts without any emotional inclination, but for the sake of duty alone. Kant indicates that helping other people has moral worth when it is done not out emotional inclination, but from duty perceived by our reason.
For Aristotle a virtuous person is one who not only acts virtuously, but also has the appropriate emotion while doing so. Not having the proper emotion is as significant as not acting in accordance with it. To be unmoved by the sufferings of others is morally wrong even if one acts to relieve the sufferings of others for different reasons. The virtuous person is first of all a sensitive person who cares about other people. When the harmony in this person between the emotional attitudes and moral norms is achieved, one can follow Augustine's instruction "Love, and do what you will."
The moral person in the Kantian sense is one who is struggling all the time to overcome her emotional tendencies and is successful in this struggle. Moral norms are important for this person and she is ready to pay a heavy price for behaving according to them. Intellectual reasoning points out the importance of moral norms and this is sufficient for this person to sacrifice her personal desires.
The actor Dustin Hoffman may be considered to be a virtuous person in the Aristotelian sense, since he once claimed that after meeting his wife, he felt no passion toward other women. There is no infidelity in the behavior and heart of such a genuine lover, since the emotions and values are not in conflict. Most other people are less fortunate, and overcoming such a conflict is a major step toward behaving morally. This is obviously the case of certain American presidents, such as John Kennedy and Bill Clinton. If we believe Bill in claiming that now he does not have sexual relationships-at least not full sexual relationships-with anyone but his wife, then Bill can be regarded as a virtuous person in the Kantian sense. Despite his emotional tendencies and many temptations, he has managed to behave morally; the heavy emotional price paid for this did not deter this virtuous man from moral behavior.
I believe we should distinguish here between a virtuous person and a hero. There is a Talmudic saying: "Who is a hero? He who conquers his desire." The virtuous person is not a hero since he does not need to conquer his desires: his desires are in harmony with moral norms and there is no need to conquer them. Conquest of desire is not a natural state and therefore cannot be the basis for moral harmony. When Bill refrains from adultery he is a heroic, but not a virtuous person. The virtuous person is also not a monk who seeks solitude in order to conquer his emotional tendencies. The virtuous person is the one who finds harmony while engaging in pleasant activities with other people.
An essential moral difference between virtuous people and ordinary people is in their sensitivity. Virtuous people are less sensitive to immoral temptations and are more sensitive to moral wrongdoing. They cannot be characterized merely by their insensitivity to sinful temptations; they should also be characterized by their sensitivity to the suffering of others. In order to be a really virtuous person, it is not enough that a faithful husband desires no woman other than his wife; he should also care for other women and men. On the opposite side, one may describe Don Juan as a kind person, since he has a very positive attitude toward every woman. Even if some womanizers are indeed kind in nature, I would not describe them as virtuous people, since they are not insensitive to certain temptations.
It seems that commonsense provides many examples supporting Aristotle's, rather than Kant's, position in the dispute concerning the character of a moral agent. Thus, it is implausible to claim that the person who visits her friend in the hospital "because she is her friend" is morally inferior to the one who visits her "out of a sense of duty." Nevertheless, Aristotle's victory is not so clear-cut for the vast majority of people are neither virtuous nor heroes.
It is very difficult, if at all possible, to achieve the ideal of being a virtuous person whose emotional tendencies are identical to one's moral norms. Thus, even Jimmy Carter admitted that although he was very religious, he had lusted after a woman in his heart. We are condemned to experience continuous conflict between our emotional tendencies and our moral norms-no wonder there are so few virtuous people these days. This may explain the following seemingly paradoxical saying of Abraham Lincoln: "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices, have very few virtues."
Adapted from The Subtlety of Emotions
